Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/British European Airways Flight 548/archive2

Comments/replies
Comments
 * In "Captain Key's outburst", you mention that the graffiti was analyzed by a handwriting expert during the investigation... did the graffiti "artist" end up being involved in the accident? Who was it? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added an explanatory footnote there. Basically the expert could not prove that any of the graffiti was produced by the accident crew but said that some of the writing was similar or 'most closely resembled' that of the second officer. The inquiry staff discounted it all as irrelevant and said that none of it was written by the accident crew. It is mentioned here because it is mentioned in the report and other sources (completeness). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The footnote helps explain some context, but ending that section with the footnote leaves me hanging. At the end of the section you mention that the graffiti was analyzed, but I'm not sure why as the reader. Would something like this work -- "The graffiti found on Papa India's P3 desk was analysed by a handwriting expert during the investigation to determine who might have written it, although the inquiry concluded that it was unrelated to the accident."? Maybe tweak the wording to agree with the sources, but does that generally make sense? -SidewinderX (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a little more to the main text, as the board dismissed it as an irrelevance a large section on it is not entirely relevant to this article either but it is in the report and gets mentioned in almost every source on this accident (but not usually that it did not come from any of 548s crew), that's why it is included. The full analysis and board's opinion on it is on page 21 and 22 of the linked official report. I received a photo of the actual graffiti by e-mail recently which can not be used but the full wording of it (not given in the report) is on the article talk page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    16:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've wordsmithed it a teeny bit and set up the fact that graffiti was found an pappa india before you mention it. If you think my changes were inappropriate, feel free to revert them. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The only problem with your adjustment is that it has introduced repetition (Papa India followed four words later by Papa India again). I am struggling to see a fix for this, it was hard enough trying not to repeat 'Trident' and 'BE 548' many times throughout the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    16:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In a GA air crash article I wrote, I used words such as 'aircraft', 'jet', and 'airplane'. A bit vague maybe, but they should allow more flexibility.  WackyWace  converse 17:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Under "Naples incident", I would only wikilink "Foxtrot Hotel" to the phonetic alphabet, not the whole phrase "Foxtrot hotel incident". -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, have moved the wikilink along slightly.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that looks good. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In the "Stall warnings section", the last sentence of the first paragraph confuses me. "Key held the aircraft's nose up contrary to normal stall recovery procedure and levelled the wings, but his action had the effect of stalling the aircraft by slowing it down even further." First you say that his action was contrary to the normal procedure, and then you say "but", as if something unexpected happened. Would this work for you? "Key held the aircraft's nose up, contrary to normal stall recovery procedure, and levelled the wings, which had the effect of stalling the aircraft by slowing it down even further." -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed one word (the 'but') which should also remove the confusion. The 'but' is an implication from the sources, what I think it was meaning is that despite the captain holding the nose up, the aircraft didn't recover (as it would not). The source was implying that the captain expected the aircraft to recover knowing that he was using the wrong actions. Many pilots do control further into a stall with 'up elevator' as a 'last hope' action, it's a reflex action even though it does no good at all (makes things far worse of course). I think this is what the source author was implying and is probably conjecture as the only facts actually available were the positions of the control surfaces from the flight data recorder, he has effectively translated the surface positions into pilot actions.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, that looks better to me. First rule of recovering from stalls is to drop the nose and pick up airspeed! I'm not a grammer expert, but maybe take another quick look at it to make sure that all the ands and commas and whatnot add up properly. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The stall sequence section is probably the 'heaviest' part of the article, I have checked and re-checked it several times and followed the sources closely without actually copying them. Other readers have commented in the past that they don't understand why it stalled again even though the speed was higher than the previous stall. The aircraft needed 225 knots for safe flight with the droops retracted (mentioned in the first line, if I was allowed to bold the figure I would), all the stalling and system-induced attempted recoveries were happening below 200 knots, the aircraft accelerated briefly as a result of the stick pusher doing its job (twice) before it was turned off by one of the crew, a graphic of the flight path shows a 'porpoising' motion while still climbing, difficult to describe this using only words. We don't know the angle of attack as it was apparently not a recorded FDR parameter or mentioned in sources, a higher angle of attack would easily account for the higher stalling speed of the second stall. It would probably be more accurate to say that Capt. Key was preventing the stall recovery system from increasing the speed by holding the nose up (the aircraft was pitching nose down during the stick pushes). The graphic is not included in the PDF report even though it is listed as an appendix, I have a re-created version of it in another source but I can't use it after a re-read of WP:NONFREE. This may leave more questions than answers but that is the general situation with all the sources (including the report) on this accident, all we can do is repeat the facts as they were recorded and leave the reader to make their own conclusions, the Captain's daughter says herself in her quote that 'what really happened would never be known for sure'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    17:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Man, that crown copyright is a bugger. Any thought to using it as fair use? If it's truly unreplaceable... -SidewinderX (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NONFREE says that if you can use words to describe something instead of a non-free image then you should (point No. 2 in the 'nutshell' box). Granted that there are probably non-free images currently in use on WP that bend this guideline. Sounds like a 'cop-out' perhaps but I would rather not get pulled up for busting the rules. I don't have access to the original report graph just a remake of it in the Bartelski book. It shows many parameters overlapping and could confuse more than it clarifies. A video simulation of the aircraft's last movements and instrument readings like the NTSB produce nowadays would be even better, technology has moved on since 1972 of course. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it one of these graphs? http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/4-1973%20G-ARPI%20Append.pdf MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha! I knew I'd seen it before. Yes, it's page 12 of the PDF, do you think that could be uploaded (just that graph) as non-free, it's difficult to explain all that in words, I think there is a strong case for using it. Should also link to that whole appendix as well, if a fact was cited using it then it could go in the bibliography under the main report. Did you find it easily? I missed the link somehow. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Was the landing gear still down at the time of the accident? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not noted in the official report, Stewart says that the gear was retracted after takeoff (also not mentioned in the report). It appears that the gear was retracted normally and remained in that position. As it is not noted (it certainly would be if it was found in the extended position) then we have to assume it was up at the time of ground impact. There is a marked lack of aircraft wreckage analysis in the official report with words like 'according to the AIB ...' which implies to me that there was a separate AIB report which was never made public or the details did not make it into the public inquiry report available as a PDF from the bibliography section of this article. I added that the gear was retracted normally after takeoff anyway and cited it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, makes sense. I guess I was just curious if they ever realized they were falling out of the sky and tried anything else. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What killed all the passengers? The force of the impact? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A good point, the inquiry report goes no further than 'fatal injuries'. There was a coroner's inquiry, briefly mentioned in Flight and the examination of Capt. Key must have been part of it. I searched quite hard for this report, including online at the county coroner's office but found nothing (that may be due to the way I am searching, not that it is not there). The condition of the bodies was described to me by the teacher (accident scene witness) I mentioned in the first nomination rationale, it is not what you might think. Can not obviously use this as it is total original research. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can get information at all, or even a sentence or two from a source you already have, I think it would add a lot. As it stands I know that nearly everyone died at the scene, and that a fire didn't break out until later... it's a little curious without any details. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have all the books given in the bibliography section except Job, a few more that I have not used and the internet and have still found nothing relating to the passenger coroner's inquest other than the date that it was opened. It is probably so obvious that a human being is not going to survive hitting the ground at 4,500 ft per minute that it was not reported, accident reports have improved greatly now and these details are usually included, even injuries related to seating positions in the cabin that you may have seen before. I will keep looking, no reason why it can not be added in the future if something is found. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    17:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. I guess the root of my question was that the fact that all the passengers died seemed to be "hidden" in a modifier at the end of a sentence in the rescue operations section. ("; there were no other survivors.") That seems like a big deal to me... maybe break that out into it's own sentence instead of just that phrase. Perhaps something like "All of the other 116 persons were found dead at the scene." I don't know if that's the best wording, but I was just searching for something in the body mentioning that it was a terrible accident. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Did the aircraft break up at all on impact? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, it is barely mentioned in the public inquiry report. A photograph of the accident site would tell all, there are images available but no free ones and any that could possibly be used as non-free do not have sufficient licensing information to actually complete the rationale. It's quite frustrating but I will keep looking. I have added a quote from Captain Eric Pritchard who described the scene quite accurately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There aren't any photos from the report that are public domain? I think in the US all NTSB reports are in the public domain. A photo of the site would be really great. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There would have been images included with the original hard copy report, they are listed as appendices but not included in the PDF. As Crown Copyright they will become public domain in 2022 (50 years after publishing date). A non-free image of the accident site that was in the infobox some time ago was deleted. If you would like to see images of the crash scene just 'Google' 'G-ARPI' or play the video on this BBC page, I don't watch it often. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    17:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, this silly crown copyright thing. Any thoughts about a fair use rationale? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally would see no problem with a fair use image of the aircraft following the crash. It would, without a doubt, add a good deal of context to the article.  WackyWace  converse 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nor would I, the problem is lack of information like date, author/photographer and publisher. Publishing companies that are credited to images of the crash scene no longer exist, I have tried quite hard with this but will keep trying. Image review at FAC is quite strict (I have previously nominated articles at FAC where images had to be removed as part of the process). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe include some sort of reference for the violence of the impact... I know that a 23 m/s descent rate is very high, but maybe comparing it to a normal landing descent rate or something would give readers a sense of scale. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No reference from a reliable source available unfortunately, the two boys who witnessed the crash did not actually see it impact the ground as their view was blocked by trees, they would not have described it in a scientific way in any case. What would be useful perhaps is a graphic of the aircraft flight path, I think there is one in the inquiry report but again I would have to justify it's use as a non-free image. Will have a look at it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to say you need a graphic description of the impact... the article already has the 23 m/s descent rate in it. Maybe just a sentence saying "The rate of descent at the time of impact was 23 m/s, an order of magnitude higher than a typical landing rate of descent of 3 m/s" (I just made that number up, but it's probably around that). -SidewinderX (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be original research to do that as comparison of the rate of descent of this aircraft's last 'landing' to a normal landing is not mentioned in the sources related to it. If you get a landing right the descent rate should be 0 m/s at the point of touchdown, mine are sometimes harder than this I have to admit! How do you convey the enormous forces involved in an airliner crash in words or even using a still image? Pretty difficult. Stewart simply says 'just 36 seconds after the inadvertant droop lever movement Papa India...impacted on its belly near the Crooked Billet roundabout', ending a paragraph with this as if to leave a pause for the reader to imagine the scene. I'm no wordsmith, just a simple fact-gatherer (but I'm working on it). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    19:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that's true... maybe I'm spending too much time thinking about carrier landings (which are much worse than 0 ft/s!) -SidewinderX (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article states that public inquires are uncommon for aircraft accidents... maybe mention one or two other cases where public inquiries were held? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Got me there! I am just repeating what the sources say. I can look into it as there must have been previous public inquiries that made them unpopular, might be a struggle to tie them in with this article but I will see what's in it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A short search came up with the Llandow air disaster of 1950 so BE 548's public inquiry was clearly not the first for an air accident, how common they were I don't know. The BBC calls the investigation into this particular accident a public inquiry, Flight calls it a court of inquiry. I note in the Flight news report linked from that article that some of the findings were contested, not unusual in any kind of accident report I suppose, there will always be someone who disagrees with the findings. The popularity or otherwise of UK public inquiries is not a road that I want to go down in this article (BE 548) but it could be something for the public inquiry article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, ok. I guess it would just help to have some sort of sense of how unusual (or not) it is for an air accident to end up in a public inquiry rather than a normal investigation. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You mention that the captain's "distressing arterial event" was intrepeted by the public as a heart attack... was it a heart attack, or was it misinterpreted by the public? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Best to read the official report on this as I can't answer that (nor could the coroner either precisely it seems). My understanding from reading it all is that the captain had a pre-existing heart condition (atherosclerosis) and an abnormality (injury?) that were both found during his post-mortem examination, the time scale given for the 'event' which caused the damage could have meant that it happened during the flight. Sources say that this 'event' was interpreted by the press and public as a Heart attack (Myocardial infarction). What I think is implied there by 'heart attack' (and not to be flippant but this is the only way I can describe it) is the 'classic' hands clutching to the chest type heart attack that actors use in films. The report, other sources and the article are stating that there is a distinct difference between what the captain was suffering from and what the public thought had happened. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What does "unserviceability" mean? Does it mean the part was not regularly maintained, or that it was located where it could not be maintained? Would the crew have known that the valve was in bad shape?-SidewinderX (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at that as it is a term used commonly in the UK aircraft industry but I agree probably not entirely clear to readers outside of the field, it probably came from the report and I would use it myself without thinking. Unserviceable (or U/S) means broken, 'the aircraft is serviceable = ready to go, airworthy, no problems, 'the aircraft is unserviceable' = has a fault, needs investigation or rectification before flight. It does imply that you can't service it now you mention it! Never thought of it like that before, will amend it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Have replaced that wording with more common terms now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've got no problem understanding it now! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I missed your question on whether the crew were aware of the component failure, it is possible that they were from system warnings. This is the part of the article that covers it: This fault could have given the crew indications of failure in the system, offering Key solid grounds for mistrusting its warnings and interventions and ultimately overriding it. The failure indications might have appeared just prior to take-off and could have accounted for the two-minute delay at the end of the runway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Kind of a large comment -- you mention in the FAC nom that the accident had far reaching implications. After reading the article, the only major result of the accident seems to be that voice recorders were mandated for most British passenger aircraft. Were there any other implications? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a good point. The 'far-reaching' implications was the introduction of formal crew resource management (CRM) training, this accident is regularly used as an example during courses. I put it in the lead but forgot to enter it in the text which I have done now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it is not in the article lead but just in my second FAC review nomination rationale (i.e. my own thoughts), but it did prompt me to add that important detail which was missing. For it to appear in the lead the CRM section would have to be expanded which I can't do with the sources that I have to hand. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, the added line there looks good to me. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)